[COMMENT: Thanks be to God,
the states are beginning to stand up and fight back! Note the
reference to the word 'tyrannical' below..., regarding future generations. This
is one of the most encouraging developments I have seen in a looong time.
E. Fox]

WND EXCLUSIVE

Arguments scheduled in 9th Circuit on Montana's 'freedom
act'

Bob
Unruh joined WND in 2006 after
nearly three decades with the
Associated Press, as well as
several Upper Midwest
newspapers, where he covered
everything from legislative
battles and sports to tornadoes
and homicidal survivalists. He
is also a photographer whose
scenic work has been used
commercially.

Just as the rhetoric in Washington on guns has
hit a zenith – with Joe Biden promising executive orders to try to
prevent the hardware from doing damage – a court order has revived a
stunning plan adopted by several states that tells Washington,
regarding many guns, to just go away.

Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting
Sports Association, confirmed that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals has scheduled oral arguments in the MSSA v. Holder case for
March 4 in Portland, Ore. He is the only individual who is a
plaintiff in the case.

The challenge to Washington’s death-grip on gun
rules across the nation has been stalled at the appellate level for
nearly two years, but a ruling from the notoriously and
often-overturned court bench is needed for the plaintiffs to reach
the U.S. Supreme Court, where they want to finish their fight.

“You probably know that I wrote the Montana
Firearms Freedom Act to mount a challenge to federal ‘Commerce
Clause’ power, using firearms as the vehicle for the exercise,”
Marbut said in his announcement about the sudden movement in the
case.

“The MFFA declares that any firearms made and
retained in Montana are simply not subject to any federal authority
under the power given to Congress in the Constitution to ‘regulate
commerce … among the states.”

The case was brought on Oct. 9, 2009, when the
MFFA went into effect, and Marbut explains, “We need to get to the
U.S. Supreme Court in order to overturn a century of bad Commerce
Clause precedent.”

He noted the contributions of the Second
Amendment Foundation, and Missoula attorney Quentin Rhoades on the
case.

Among those are Tennessee (SB1610); Utah (SB11);
Wyoming (HB95); South Dakota (SB89); Arizona (HB2307); Idaho
(HB589); and Alaska (HB1860). Representing a consensus among the
states on the limits of federal power, additional copies of the MFFA
were also introduced in the legislatures of 23 other states,
for a total of 31
jurisdictions where it has been enacted or introduced.

Those laws are on hold pending the outcome of
Montana’s court challenge.

A federal judge in Montana determined that the
state could not do what it wanted.

When South Dakota’s law was signed by Gov. Mike
Rounds, a commentator said it addresses the “rights of states which
have been carelessly trampled by the federal government for
decades.”

WND reported when Wyoming joined the states with self-declared
exemptions from federal gun regulation, officials there took the
unusual step of including penalties for any agent of the U.S. who
“enforces or attempts to enforce” federal gun rules on a “personal
firearm.”

The costs could be up to two years in prison and
$2,000 in fines for an offender there.

Filings already submitted to the appellate panel
challenge whether the judges will choose a “tyrannical”
Washington or a federal government restrained by the Constitution.

“The government may argue that it is not, in its
current incarnation, tyrannical. The
national government usually abides by the law, typically protects
its citizens’ rights, and always celebrates in its peaceful
transfers of power. Whatever fear appellants or anyone else may have
of its becoming tyrannical, the
government may argue, is no more than disingenuous alarmism,”
the brief explains.

“Such an argument would be wrong.”

The brief explains the federal government already
has proven that it is tyrannical.

“The wholesale stripping of independent
sovereignty from the states has destroyed the balance of power, and
given the federal government advantages it demonstrably tends to
abuse. The outrage that is our $14.5 trillion national debt may be
the worst example. The borning cry of the American Revolution was
‘no taxation without representation.’ By borrowing more money than
the current generation can repay in our lifetimes, Congress leaves a
legacy of debt for future generations. Our progeny did not vote for
the monumental hole their parents are digging for them. Still they
will certainly be saddled with the duty to make good. This is
tyranny.”

The plaintiffs also have argued that the U.S.
reneged on the promises that were made when the territory of Montana
became a state in 1889.

The
Weapons Collectors Society in Montana points out that Montana
became a state in the union under a legal compact, and at the time,
“It was the understanding of the parties that the United States
Constitution would not be construed by the federal government to
deny or disparage the rights reserved by the people of Montana and
by the state, including the right to regulate and engage in the
intrastate manufacture and sale of guns and ammunition.

“The compact states on its face that it may not
be amended without consent of both the state of Montana and the
United States… The appellee’s assertion the MFFA is preempted by
federal law is an attempt to unilaterally amend that contract … and
is, therefore, unenforceable.”

The organization, representing hundreds of gun
enthusiasts across the state, explains how strongly Montanans felt
then – and feel now – about their right to defend themselves:

It cannot be fairly disputed that firearms
making and selling was occurring within the boundaries of
Montana in 1889. Those manufacturing activities were not
regulated by the federal government at that time. … It is
difficult to envision that those who negotiated the terms of the
compact in 1889 did not understand that the state reserved the
right to regulate those firearms manufacturing/selling
activities within Montana at the time of the making of the
compact or had agreed the people of Montana had given up forever
their ability to make and sell firearms without first obtaining
the federal government’s permission.

It is unlikely that the negotiators to the
compact understood the text of the U.S. Constitution to allow
the federal government to regulate in any way the right to make,
keep, bear, and sell arms.

Indeed, it could be argued that Montana would
not have agreed to join the Union if the federal government had,
at that time, suggested that it was going to enact legislation
similar to the [Gun Control Act] or [National Firearms Act] and
subject Montana citizens to federal criminal prosecution and
civil penalties for engaging in local firearms dealing.

A brief from the Center for Constitutional
Jurisprudence and 15 state legislators from Indiana, Colorado, Utah,
West Virginia, New Hampshire, Idaho, Oklahoma and Minnesota pointed
out that the federal gun laws were set up to “assist state and local
authorities with the control of local crime,” but that’s an area of
concern over which Congress has no authority.

A number of Montana legislators submitted a brief
that said the Tenth Amendment is the “final safeguard” against
federal encroachment on state authority. And a brief from the states
of Utah, Alaska, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, South Carolina, South
Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming said Washington’s “enumerated
powers” under the Constitution simply don’t include the authority to
regulate intrastate activity.

Also filing briefs with the 9th Circuit were Gun
Owners of America and the Goldwater Institute and Cato Institute,
who argued the U.S. Supreme Court has determined “Congress may not
‘commandeer’ state legislatures by requiring them to legislate as
directed by the federal government.”